MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2164491820 · doi:10.1080/13590840500535396

Environmental influences in cancer aetiology

2005· article· en· W2164491820 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
J.A. Newby, C. V. Howard

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Nutritional & Environmental Medicine · 2005
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueCancer Risks and Factors
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésEtiologyEpidemiologyMedicineEnvironmental healthIncidence (geometry)CancerEnvironmental epidemiologyCancer incidenceEpidemiology of cancerCancer preventionPathologyBreast cancerInternal medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Purpose. The purpose of this review is to inform both scientists and clinicians about the increase in cancer incidence throughout the Western World and to discuss environmental influences in cancer aetiology, in order to stimulate thoughts about plausible aetiological mechanisms and possible preventative measures.Design. Literature review.Materials and methods. This review was conducted by searching biomedical databases such as PubMed and Medline. Further research to obtain cancer incidence data involved accessing UK cancer registries, major cancer charities and government statistical records from the Office of National Statistics, the Department of Health, and the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.Results. Cancer incidence rates have increased in the Western World and this increased incidence affects the whole age spectrum. Epidemiological studies have provided some evidence of an association between exposure to environmental contaminants such as organochlorines and increased cancer risk. However, many epidemiological studies have been inconclusive. Similar reviews concerning environmental influences in cancer aetiology concluded that exposures to carcinogenic or endocrine‐disrupting chemicals exist at concentrations too low or have carcinogenic potential too weak to be considered a major factor in cancer aetiology. However, animal and in vitro studies together with epidemiological evidence discussed in this review would dispute that claim; even if healthy adults are not at risk, it would seem that the developing foetus, infant, child and young adults are at risk. In addition, studies discussed in this review show that low oestrogenic potency cannot be used as a marker of the capability of a chemical to cause oestrogenic responses and endocrine disruption. Genetic polymorphisms, which can predispose people to cancer, may interact with environmental contaminants such as organochlorines and endocrine disrupters, thus providing a modifying effect. Prevention measures have hitherto predominately centred on tobacco smoking cessation and diet education. Anecdotal evidence from practising physicians in pre‐industrial and traditional living societies, i.e. Canadian Inuits and Brazilian Indians suggests malignant disease was rare. A relatively new theory other than the somatic mutation theory has been proposed, the main premise being that carcinogenesis is a problem of tissue organization, comparable with organogenesis.Conclusions. It is feasible that chemical environmental contaminants, in particular synthetic pesticides and organochlorines with endocrine‐disrupting properties, could be major factors in cancer aetiology, particularly for hormone‐dependent malignancies, such as breast, testicular and prostate cancers. Animal and in vitro studies provide good evidence of a feasible mechanism whereby environmentally relevant levels of organochlorines and substances of low oestrogenic potency can cause endocrine disruption and consequently malignant disease. In addition, low oestrogenic potency should not be used as a marker of the capability of a chemical to cause oestrogenic responses and endocrine disruption. Preventative measures other than education about tobacco, diet and the promotion of physical activity should be considered. Moreover, it seems to be the most vulnerable members of society: the developing foetus, the developing child and adolescent and the genetically predisposed, who are at risk of developing cancer following involuntary exposure to environmental contaminants. This may be an appropriate time for governments to adopt the precautionary principle until substances to which members of society are involuntarily exposed are proved safe from long‐term, low‐level effects on human health. The World Health Organization estimates that between 1 and 5% of malignant disease in developed countries is attributable to environmental factors: it is possible that this figure may be underestimated. Anecdotal evidence suggests that cancer may be a disease of industrialization. Further research into the tissue organization field theory may be warranted, as some forms of pre‐malignant states are attributed to dysorganogenesis, for example an undescended testis.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,005
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,018

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,005
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,002
Bibliométrie0,0030,005
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,002
Communication savante0,0030,002
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,019
Tête enseignante GPT0,307
Écart entre enseignants0,288 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations28
Publié2005
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Nutritional & Environmental MedicineMême sujetCancer Risks and FactorsTravaux en français237 207